The Bundy Affair #25Steven Myhre and His Fraud upon the Court

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 2, 2018

Recent events in Las Vegas have led to a completely new perspective on the misdeeds of government. Failure to provide timely Discovery, especially that of an exculpatory evidence (proving innocence or to impeach witness testimony).

As Judge Gloria Navarro pointed out in the seven known violations, six of them were deemed “willful”, where the seventh could possibly be inadvertent. However, in the closed session that followed the declaration of a Mistrial, there may have been as many as 20 more violations of either Brady or Giglio. Those cases establish precedence with regard to the timely disclosure of evidence to the Defense.

Before we proceed, perhaps reviews of the timeline of primary events in this case are necessary:

The events that are addressed in the Indictment occurred in the first half of April 2014.

The initial Indictment was February 3, 2016.

The Superseding Indictment was issued March 2, 2016.

The current trial, now on hold pending a decision with regard to Mistrial or Dismissal, began in late November 2017.

“As with any large case, this multi-agency, multi-defendant, multi-trial case has presented significant discovery challenges: hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, hundreds of hours of video and audio recordings, and thousands of emails, to name a few, balanced against factors such as witness security and disclosure procedures acceptable to the Court. This complexity notwithstanding, and ever mindful of its Constitutional, statutory, Department, and Court-ordered discovery obligations, the government has always strived to meet these challenges with diligence, fairness, and efficiency.

First, let’s put a little perspective on timing. It was 23 months from the event (1) that led to the Superseding Indictment (3). It was another 14 months to the commencement of the trial (4). That is 37 months, or, 3 years and 1 month. However, they had the initial Indictment (2) and then modified it to the Superseding Indictment (3), in a month. You would think that in those 23 months, they would have reviewed the records that they had to assure that they were truthful in what the presented to the Grand Jury, for both the initial Indictment and the Superseding Indictment.

And, most assuredly, they would not have accused the Bundy supporters of lying to the public about calling people to come to the Ranch because the government had snipers and posed a threat to the Bundys, knowing full well that they did have snipers and an FBI SWAT team in place, three days before Ryan Payne arrived at the Ranch.

The continued to lie, through the first two trial and into the current trial, claiming that there were no snipers however, the conspired to “wash” some documents of record by having a more senior FBI Special Agent, who is also the FBI agent that is assisting the US Attorney in the current trial. See The Bundy Affair #24 – FBI and Prosecution Conspire to Falsify Evidence.

Next, let’s consider the government’s explanation that no harm was done by not providing the information required by both law and the Rules of the Court. From the last paragraph, page 7/55

[Note: This article had been posted and was available on the main page. Then, it disappeared. I don’t know if it was a glitch in WordPress, or not. However, it is being posed, again, so that it shows on the main page. opf]

The Bundy Affair #23Larry Wooten – Ethical Government Employee, and Rare
His expose on BLM

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 15, 2017

Now, I have to start with a disclaimer. I do so since the last time I received unsolicited information, I ended up spending 7 days in jail and the Court (Judge Anna Brown) didn’t believe me in my sworn testimony, but she did believe a conversation I had with Schuyler Barbeau, in an effort to cheer him up, while he was still in jail.

I received in the mail, with no return address, an 18 page email that I had heard about. However, the details in what I had heard were minimal, at best. But, having the whole 18 pages, I find that the initial, or original email was only 17 pages.

In an undated email from Larry Wooten to Andrew D. Goldsmith, Associate Deputy Attorney General, National Criminal Discovery Coordinator, Wooten writes of many misdeeds in the entire Gold Butte Impound Operation, that being the operation that unfolded near Bunkerville, Nevada, back in early April 2014.

In a cover email, the eighteenth page, to Steven Myhre, United States Attorney for the Nevada District, in a forwarded email, the 17 page emails is included for a total of 18 pages. Wooten explains in the cover email that his superiors, his chain of command, would not deal with what he had presented to them. I’m not quite sure why he sent it to Myhre, since Myhre is implicated in the information, along with any others.

As I read the email, I realized that this was going to be a rather lengthy article. There were, Wooten’s own words, “Law Enforcement Supervisory Misconduct and Associated Cover-ups as well as Potential Unethical Actions, Malfeasance and Misfeasance by United States Attorney’s Office”, that I decided that I could only cover the more significant ones, and then provide the entire email for those that wanted to know more.

That being said, let’s get on with the truth of the matter, and, yes, I assume that the information provided is probably quite truthful, based upon other available information and practices.

On page 2, we find this rather concise statement by Wooten:

In February of 2017, it became clear to me that keeping quite became an unofficial condition of my future employment with the BLM, future awards, promotions, and a good future job reference.

This is followed by the first real indication of impropriety o the part of the BLM:

The longer the investigation went on, the more extremely unprofessional, familiar, racy, vulgar and bias filled actions, open comments, and inappropriate electronic communications I was made aware of, or I personally witnessed. In my opinion, these issues would likely undermine the investigation, cast considerable doubt on the professionalism of our agency and be possibly used to claim investigator bias/unprofessionalism and to impeach and undermine key witness credibility.

On page 4, we can see the arrogance of the BLM “public servants”, their display of ridiculing those on the other side of the fence. that Wooten refuses to use the word without replacing letters to, perhaps, make them pass some government filter.

.

Many times these open unprofessional and disrespectful comments and name calling (often by law enforcement supervisors who are potential witnesses and investigative team supervisors) reminded me of middle school. At any given time, you could hear subjects of this investigation openly referred to as “ret*rds,” “r*d-necks,” “Overweight woman with the big jowls,” “d*uche bags,” “tractor-face,” “idiots,” “in-br*d,” etc., etc., etc.’ Also, it was common to receive or have electronic communications reported to me during the course of the investigation in which senior investigators and law enforcement supervisors (some are potential witnesses and investigative team members) specifically made fun of suspects and referenced “Cliven Bundy felony. . . .just kind of rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it?.” di1dos,” western themed g@y bars, odors of sweat, playing chess with menstru*ting women. Cliven Bundy sh1tting on cold stainless steel, personal lubricant and Ryan Bundy holding a giant penls (on April 12 2014). Extremely bias and degrading fliers were-also openly displayed and passed around the office, a booking photo of Cliven Bundy was (and is) inappropriately, openly, prominently and proudly displayed in the office of a potential trial witnesses and my supervisor and an altered and degrading suspect photos were put in an office presentation by my supervisor’ Additionally, this investigation also indicated that former BLM SAC Dan Love sent photographs of his own feces and his girl-fiend’s vagina to coworkers and supervisors. It was also reported by another BLM SAC that former BLM SAC Dan Love told him that there is no way he gets more pu$$y than him. Furthermore, I became aware of potentially captured comments in which our own law enforcement officers allegedly bragged about roughing up Dave Bundy, grinding his face into the ground, and Dave Bundy having little bits of gravel stuck in his face (from April 6, 2014). On two occasions, I also overheard a BLM SAC tell a BLM ASAC that another/other BLM employee(s) and potential trial witnesses didn’t properly turn in the required discovery material (likely exculpatory evidence). My supervisor even instigated the unprofessional monitoring of jail calls between defendants and their wives, without prosecutor or.FBI consent, for the apparent purpose of making fun of post arrest telephone calls…

Yes, that is your taxpayer dollars hard at work.

Then, on page 5, we get this rather interesting tidbit:

Additional Note: In this timeframe, a key witness deactivated his body camera. Further Note: It became clear to me a serious public and professional image problem had developed within the BLM Office of Law Enforcement and-Security. I felt I needed to work to correct this and mitigate the damage it no doubt had already done.

Further down, on the same page, we find an indication of the desire of SAC Dan Love for his place in history.

The investigation also indicated that on multiple occasions, former BLM Special Agent-in-Charge (SAC) Love specifically and purposely ignored U.S. Attorney’s office and BLM civilian management direction and intent as well as Nevada State Official recommendations in order to command the most intrusive, oppressive, large scale, and militaristic trespass cattle impound possible. Additionally, this investigation also indicated excessive use of force, civil rights and policy violations. The investigation indicated that there was little doubt there was an improper cover-up in virtually every matter that a particular BLM SAC participated in, or oversaw and that the BLM SAC was immune from discipline and the consequences of his actions

On page 6, we start to see some of the effort to cover-up some of the doings of SAC Love’s abusive nature being covered by his superiors including the FBI and the US Attorney’s office.

I personally informed Acting United States Attorney Steven Myhre and Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Nadia Ahmed, as well as Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Special Agent Joel Willis by telephone of these issues. When I did, my supervisor in my opinion deceptively acted ignorant and surprised. As the case continued, it became clear to me that once again, my supervisor failed to inform the U.S. Attorney’s Office Prosecution Team about exculpatory key witness statements. Note: During this investigation, my supervisor would also deceptively indicate to the Prosecution Team that no one else was in the room when he was on speakerphone. Thereby, allowing potential trial witnesses and his friends to inappropriately hear the contents of the discussion.

My supervisor even took photographs in the secure command post area of the Las Vegas FBI Headquarters and even after he was told that no photographs were allowed, he recklessly emailed out photographs of the “Arrest Tracking fall” in which Eric Parker and Cliven Bundy had “X’s” through their face and body (indicating prejudice and bias). Thereby, making this electronic communication subject to Federal Records Protections, the Litigation Hold, Discovery, and the FOIA.

Next, on pages 7 and 8, we have Myhre becoming upset because Wooten has disclosed some of what he has run across that is unethical, as well as some interesting disclosures regarding Dan Love and his contempt for life of people..

I am convinced that I was removed to prevent the ethical and proper further disclosure of the severe misconduct, failure to correct and report, and cover-ups by BLM OLES supervision. My supervisor told me that AUSA Steven Myhre “furiously demanded”, that I be removed from the case and mentioned something about us (the BLM, specifically my supervisor) not turning over (or disclosing) discovery related material issues I had with the BLM not following its own enabling statute, and a personal issue they thought I had with former BLM SAC Dan Love. Note: Prior to taking the assignment as Bundy/Gold Butte Investigation Case Agent/Lead investigator for the BLM/DOI, I didn’t know and had never spoken to former BLM SAC Dan Love. I was new to the agency and I was also specifically directed to lead an unbiased, professional , and independent investigation, which I tried to do, despite supervisory misconduct. Time after time, I was told of former BLM SAC Love’s misconduct. I was told by BLM Law Enforcement Supervisors that he had a “Kill Book’, as a trophy and in essence bragged about getting three individuals in Utah to commit suicide (see Operation Cerberus Action out of Blanding, Utah and the death of Dr. Redd), the “Failure Rock,” Directing Subordinates to Erase Official Government files in order to impede the efforts of rival civilian BLM employees in preparation for the “Burning Man” Special Event, unlawfully removing evidence, bragging about the number of OIG and internal investigations on him and indicating that he is untouchable, encouraging subordinates not to cooperate with internal and OIG investigations, his harassment of female Native American subordinate employee where Mr. Love allegedly had a doll that he referred to by the employees name and called her his drunk little Indian, etc., etc., etc.

Myhre is already implicated, but it gets worse, as we see on pages 8 and 9:

Additionally, AUSA Steven Myhre adopted a few troubling policies in reference to this case. When we became aware that Dave Bundy’s seized iPad likely contained remarks from BLM Law Enforcement Officers that is potentially evidence of civil rights violations and excessive use of force, Mr. Myhre and my supervisor not only apparently failed [to] initiate the appropriate follow-on actions, Mr. Myhre apparently failed to notify the Defense Counsel and also decided not to return the iPad back to Dave Bundy, even though the iPad wasn’t going to be searched pursuant to a search warrant or used as evidence in trial and Dave Bundy claimed he needed the iPad for his business. Mr. Myhre also adopted a policy of not giving a jury the option or ability to convict on lesser offenses and instead relied on a hard to prove, complicated prosecution theory in order to achieve maximum punishments (which has generally failed to this point). Also, the government relied on factually incorrect talking points and on (or about) February 15, 2017, misrepresented the case facts about government snipers during trial. Note: The investigation indicated that there was at least one school trained Federal Sniper equipped with a scoped/magnified optic bolt action precision rifle, another Federal Officers equipped with a scoped/magnified optic large frame(308 caliber) AR style rifle, and many officers that used magnified optics with long range graduated reticles (out to 1,000 meters-approximately 500 meters on issued rifles depending on environmental conditions) on standard law enforcement issued AR (223 caliber/5.56 mm) and that often officers were in “over watch” positions. Additionally, the investigation also indicated the possibility that the FBI and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department had law enforcement snipers/designated-marksmen on hand for possible deployment.

Then, on pages 9 and 10, he plead for the various government participants to act in an ethical manner.

I ask that your office ensure that Acting United States Attorney Steven Myhre and the rest of the Cliven Bundy/Gold Butte Nevada Prosecution and investigative Team is conducting the prosecution in an ethical, appropriate, and professional matter. I also specifically ask that your office provide oversight to Mr. Myhre and his team regarding the affirmative responsibility to seek out evidence favorable to the accused, not to discourage the reporting of case issues and suspected misconduct, to report/act on suspected civil rights violations and not to retaliate against an agent that does his required duty. I also ask that your office ensure that the Prosecution Team is free of bias and-has ethically and correctly turned over exculpatory evidence to the Defense. I ask that as appropriate, prosecution team bias (by Mr. Myhre and possibly by AUSA Daniel Schiess) and factually incorrect talking points (by AUSA Nadia Ahmed and Mr. Myhre) be disclosed and corrected. Note: Mr. Myhre previously referred to the defendants as a cult and Mr. Schiess said let’s get these “shall we say Deplorables.”

Next, on page 10, we find Steven Myhre deeply involved in misconduct and trying desperately to rid himself of Wooten and the potential for disclosure of the misdeeds of the prosecution team.

I believe this case closely mirrors the circumstances of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens trial. As you may notice from the trials and several defense cross-examinations, very little of the impeachment and exculpatory issues were brought up by the defense. I believe this is most likely because the defense counsel was unethically not made aware of them and the severe issues were covered up. Additionally, I believe I can easily show that both my supervision and possibly Mr. Myhre entered into an unethical agreement to remove me from being the lead investigator and case agent for the BLM/DOI due to my objection to and disclosure of outrageous misconduct, the belief that my testimony under oath would embarrass supervisory law enforcement officials in our agency and negatively affect the prosecution, my insistence that my supervisor stop his individual misconduct, correct the misconduct of other employees and report the misconduct as appropriate (for counseling, correction, discipline and the possible required internal investigations) and my belief’ that my agency is violating the letter and intent of the law.

In regard to Prosecution team misconduct, I believe some of it may be attributable to simple mistakes and simple poor judgment. However, I believe it is unlikely (if my supervisor’s statements to me are true) that Mr. Myhre wasn’t himself acting unethically and inappropriately. Prior to the last few weeks of the investigation, I held Mr. Myhre in the highest of regards. He is an extremely hard worker and very intelligent. However I feel that his judgment is likely clouded by extreme personal and religious bias and a desire to win the case at all costs. I feel he is likely willing to ignore and fail to report exculpatory material. extreme bias and act unethically and possibly deceptively to win.

On page 12, we gain some insight into the effect of standing up for the right things, and how others reacted to their role in the game.

Additionally, it should be noted that I was also personally subjected to Whistle blowing Discouragement, Retaliation, and Intimidation. Threatening and questionable behaviors included the following: Invasion of Privacy, Search and Seizure, Harassment, Intimidation, Bullying, Blacklisting, Religious “tests,” and Rude and Condescending Language. Simply put, I believe I was expected to keep quiet as a condition of my continued employment, any future promotions, future awards, or a favorable recommendation to another employer.

During the course of the investigation, I determined that any disagreement with the BLM SAC, or any reporting of his many likely embarrassing. unethical/unprofessional actions and misconduct was thought to be career destroying. Time and time again, I came to believe that the BLM SAC’s subordinates and peers were afraid to correct him or properly report his misconduct (despite a duty to act) out of fear for their own jobs and reputation.

Sometimes, I felt these issues were reported to me by senior BLM OLES management and line Rangers/Agents/employees because they personally didn’t like a particular BLM SAC (although, some of these same people seemed to flatter, buddy up to, openly like, and protect the BLM SAC

On page 15, Wooten explains what he had to rely upon to write this report, with a Note:

Note: This entire document was constructed without the aid of my original notes due to their seizure by a BLM Assistant Special Agent-in-Charge outside of my presence and without my knowledge or permission, Additionally, I was aggressively questioned regarding the belief that I may have audio recorded BLM OLES management regarding their answers concerning this and other issues. All dates, times, and quotes are approximate and made to the best of my ability and memory. I’m sure there are more noteworthy items that I can’t recall at the time I constructed this document. Also Note: The other likely report worthy items were seized from me on February 18, 2017, and are believed to be in the possession of a BLM ASAC. I recommend these items be safeguarded and reviewed.

Now, I have only reported on some of the highlights of the expose’ provided by Larry Wooten. This, of itself, is not conclusive, as there is a process that has to be put into play. However, there can be little doubt that if only some of these allegations are true, then some lives, those of some government employees, are going to be negatively affected, while those Defendants that have been denied justice as a consequence of these unlawful activities, are going to finally be vindicated for their actions back in April, 2014.

Burns Chronicles No 61

Jon Ritzheimer is Going to Prison

But His Service Continues to Help His Fellow Defendants

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 4, 2017

Jon Ritzheimer had some things to say, after he was sentenced by Judge Anna Brown to serve 1 year and 1 day. However, with time served and good time, he will probably serve only eight more months, beginning in February when he has to begin his sentence.

Below is a letter Jon sent for me to get out to those who wish to see our once great nation returned to obedience to the Constitution, as written and intended. It also explains Jon’s continued willingness to help those who have been required to pay restitution as a part of their sentence. Though I have known about his intention in this regard, for some time, it is time for all to know how kind and caring Jon’s heart really is. The two guns going to auction were the only two that were not confiscated by the government. Truly historical pieces. This will be explained in the following letter.

Further, though he has arranged to have the Gremlin Garage continue in his absences, he is concerned with the needs of his family and provides a means for those of you willing to help, a means to do so.

And, finally, the government sought a 24 month, 3 years of supervised release for Jon. Fortunately, for us, and especially for Jon and his family, Judge Brown saw that though she had to punish him, she chose a much more fair sentence than what the government sought.

Barbeau Qued in Seattle

The Government is Seeking the Last Drop of His Blood

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 4, 2017

Schuyler Barbeau’s Sentencing Recommendation, based upon his record, history, etc., recommends months of incarceration. This would be followed by 3 years of supervised release. It also recommends no monetary penalty, except the $200 Special Assessment. His Sentencing Hearing is scheduled for September 8, 2017, just a few days away. Schuyler was okay with this, as at least, he would be free (except the supervised release) in December or January.

Now, we must talk about the role of the United States Attorney. His role is to get a conviction. During trial, when Schuyler changed his pleas to Guilty, so the that task was done. However, prosecutors are those people that will lie, falsify evidence, object to defendants putting on a defense, and use every conniving trick in their book, are also vindictive. The Sentencing Guidelines establish a check list for the punishment of guilty defendants. There wouldn’t be much need for the Guidelines if Congress felt that the punishment should be determined in the courtroom. However, they enacted the Guidelines in their quest for “equality”, and that should be the end of it.

However, those well-paid government attorneys seem to have a scorecard, like ticket quotas for police. Their vindictive nature (since they are otherwise immune from nearly any remedy) shows when they can’t be satisfied with a job, well, well done, with the conviction.

Not so with USA Annette L. Hayes and AUSA Thomas M. Woods, with the United States Attorney in Seattle, Washington. They have prepared a 12 page “Government’s Sentencing Memorandum” in an effort to nearly triple Schuyler’s sentence, to 72 months.

That Memorandum says that:

“Barbeau has spent years telling the world that he will use deadly force against law enforcement officers who attempt to take any steps that interfere with his beliefs, including instances in which officers are simply carrying out Court-authorized orders. His conduct has not been limited to words—he built a fully-automatic machinegun that he repeatedly threatened to use against law enforcement. He sought to purchase a .50 caliber gun on the theory that it would be more effective in a shootout with law enforcement.”

The fact that this is a conclusion of the government, not a fact ruled on in court, seems to make no difference. Just because the government says it is so, it must be so.

The government goes on to say:

“Specifically, Barbeau has repeatedly stated that he will use deadly force to “protect himself” against an arrest where he believes that the arrest is unlawful. Thus, he repeatedly stated his intent to kill any law enforcement officers who sought to arrest him or his friends because of his view that none of them have done anything wrong. This conduct is not “self-defense”—it is murder.”

Now, this just shows how far away from our Constitution the government has drifted. In 1900, the Supreme Court ruled that John Bad Elk, who had shot and killed an officer who was armed, though the officer never raised his rifle, was guilty of a misdemeanor, or no crime at all, since the attempt to arrest him was not lawful. See The Right to Self Defense. I supposed, as we have all conjectured, the Constitution has been put aside by the government. With the crafty wording of enactments, and the “case law method”, they continue to circumvent the Constitution.

Camp Lone Star

Domestic Terrorist! Really?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 1, 2017

Kevin “KC” Massey filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request back in October 2016. He just received a response (FOIA Response). Though only two and a little bit of a third page, it is rather interesting. You can read the whole Response, though I will give some highlights. “xxx” indicates redactions, mostly names.

It begins with a Summary of Events, “On September 2, 2014, Cameron County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) Investigator and Task Force Officer (TFO) for the FBI Brownsville Field Office xxx called ATF SA xxx for assistance on the ‘BP Militia’ case.” So, the government had already set up an investigation on the “BP Militia”. So, well, it wasn’t just a coincidence that the events of August 29, 2014 occurred as they did. (ATF=Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms; SA=Special Agent; BP=Border Patrol; NFA=National Firearms Act)
Now, when we see the background, well:

“On September 2, 2014, CCSO Investigator xxx had called ATF SA xxx for assistance with the firearms from an arrest of a militia member that had been shot at by an United States Border Patrol Agent over the weekend of August 29. 2014. xxx advised SA xxx that the BP agent was following a group of illegals through the brush when he encountered a militia member pointing a firearm at him. CCSO Investigator xxx also informed SA xxx that this militia member is a previously convicted felon who was possibly in possession of NFA weapons.”

Nobody was arrested on August 29, and Court testimony established that Foerster (the one that was shot at) never pointed his weapon at the BP agent.

This, too, establishes that the government was making up a story, or they are piss-poor investigators, that would allow them to expand this operation to encompass Massey.
Then, “SA xxx advised CCSO Investigator xxx that the ATF would assist the CCSO with the investigation and agreed to meet xxx at the CCSO on this same day to examine and take custody of the recovered firearms in order to send them to ATF lab, as well as obtain copies of the current case report.”

On that same day, September, 2014, we have:

“CCSO Investigator xxx called SA xxx, approximately 15 min[utes] after the conclusion of the first phone call [described in the previous paragraph], to inform SA xxx that he had to “un-invite” ATF to the case. CCSO apologized and said that the call came from above him and he was following orders.”

So, the normal course of investigation and the involvement of ATF was abruptly halted, in just 15 minutes, because, “the call came from above him and he was following orders.”

Burns Chronicles No 59

Ryan Bundy Holds the Key

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 30, 2017

On January 26, 2016, several people, in two private vehicles were on their way to a scheduled meeting John Day, Oregon. While in a forested area, with extremely poor, if not non-existent, cell phone coverage, they were set upon by modern day highwaymen (highwaymen were people who stopped travelers and robbed them). The driver and passengers of the second vehicle submitted to the demands of the heavily armed interlopers, at gunpoint, to leave the vehicle and sit on the side of the snow-covered roadway.

The driver of the second vehicle, a white pick-up truck, following the exit of one of the passengers, sped away, seeking the assistance of a peace officer, Sheriff Glenn Palmer, of Grant County, Oregon. However, within a couple of miles they found that the highwaymen had set up a barricade across the road, barring passage. The highwaymen, hidden behind their vehicles, began firing shots at the white truck. This forced the truck off the road, where some rather adept driving may have saved one of the highwaymen’s life, by swerving, at the last moment.

The truck then came to a stop, and the driver, LaVoy Finicum, exited. In the back seat were three people; Shawna Cox, Victoria Sharp, and Ryan Bundy. Bundy sat on the left and Cox on the right.

Having already been shot at, there was concern for the safety of the party. Finicum, in an effort to draw fire away from those still in the truck, began moving towards the rear and away from the truck.

There were lots of loud noises. Some from 40 mm projectiles of rubber bullets and tear gas (OSP recovered 13 40 mm casings), others from flash-bang type grenades. Included, however, were two shots that came from the left-rear of the truck. One hit the top of the truck and one broke the driver side rear window. The round that broke the window may well have hit the side of the truck, pressuring the window to break, and deflecting into the shoulder of Ryan Bundy. This is the more logical explanation, as the velocity of the bullet, absent any other external resistance, should have penetrated much further than the fleshy part of Bundy’s shoulder.

Now, this gets interesting since the Oregon State Police (OSP) had to account for shots fired, though they could not account for two shots. Shell casings were missing, and the rather perplexing task resulted in speculation regarding the bullet impact on the driver’s side of the truck. Their conclusion was that it must have come from the shooter that fired three shots as the white truck approached the highwaymen, as shown in this OSP exhibit:

The government tried to attribute the shot at the rear door to the three shots fired as the vehicle approached the barricade. However, this does not quite work, as if you look at the yellow line in the third image. You see that if it did hit the truck, it would be a glancing strike. It would have been deflected upon impact, and the initial point of impact would be the most damaged. Any additional damage would have been less, as the bullet was deflected away from the truck body. As you can see, the greater impact was on the right side of the gap between the door and frame.

Statement by Gary Hunt
Regarding the Freedom of the Press;
Show Cause Hearing of August 23, 2017

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 26, 2017

I intended to write an article about the Freedom of the Press hearing in Portland, Oregon. However, since I had decided to testify, I had mentally prepared to answer cross-examination questions, should they be asked. My problem in writing this is that the answers given and the answers not given are mingled together in my mind, I can’t quite sort them out and be sure of the accuracy of what I say. As to discussing other matters that were brought up, as well as examination and cross-examination of the government’s two witnesses, FBI SA Jason Kruger and FBI SA Matthew Catalano, are also mingled in my mind, as well as much that was presented by both the prosecuting attorney and my able counsel, Michael Rose.

Therefore, I will, at this time, simply give an overview, from my perspective, of what occurred.

AUSA (Assistant United States Attorney) Pamala Holsinger opened by telling us how damaging my exposing the informants was. She then called FBI SA Jason Kruger to the stand. Kruger must have listened to many hours of various internet radio shows I did, as well as reading, perhaps, all that I have written in both the “Burns Chronicles” and “Freedom of the Press” series. I would say that he was accurate in his quoting from both, but often the words, without inflection and out of context, tell a story that is, at best, just close. However, his testimony, until cross-examination, simply painted a picture of me saying that what I had written would help the defendants.

However, in cross-examination, he was referred to what he had written in his 302 reports and it was pointed out that I had said that my purpose in doing the outing was to shed light on the “Misdeeds of Government”, a phrase that I has been used for decades in describing my writing.

Next came Catalano. Matthew is a nice guy and we got along well, in our two meetings. However, his examination followed the same course. Well, until cross-examination, where Mr. Rose elicited some more positive aspects of our meetings, as well as the fact that from the beginning, I had told Catalano that I didn’t believe that I was subject to a Protective Order, especially one issued out of Oregon, and me not being among those to whom the Protective Order was addressed.

Now, the dilemma is that given what they had presented, both the positive and the negative were nothing more than words. Very little about my motivation to investigate the identities and then write about the informants is addressed in the articles, themselves. And, the radio shows, well, when you speak to an audience, you are not under oath, and you may tend to not present certain statements with sufficient explanation to put a proper context on what is said. Kind of like a politician seeking election, but not telling you all that he believes.

Absent my testimony, where I could present the motivation, it would simply be a coin-toss as to whether the negative or positive would be used by Judge Anna Brown to make her ruling on the matter.

Interestingly, those who wish to ridicule me on the Internet reported that my attorney told me to “shut up”. Well, that is very far from the truth. The day before the Hearing, when I arrived in Portland, I met with him to discuss the hearing. He asked if I had any witnesses to call, and I told him that I keep all but my articles to myself — that nobody could really speak to what my motivation was — except me. He advised me of the dangers of taking the stand, though I already understood what those were. It was clear that I could not speculate on the source, which was a comfort to me, as I simply had to tell the truth, that I didn’t know who sent me the Discovery information that was the evidence I used to identify the informants. He said that he felt comfortable that I could take the stand, so it was decided that I would.

As my turn to take the stand arrived, Judge Brown asked whether I was properly advised of the potential risk, if I took the stand. Mr. Rose explained that we had discussed that, and that I was aware of the necessity that I do so. So, I took the stand and testified.

So, the current government Reply endeavors to regurgitate some of the same arguments that the government has relied upon, through the course of this ordeal. For example, they have, from the beginning, relied upon Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957), when they state, “The substantial government interest in protecting confidential sources is long established.” Where they fail in Roviaro, is that the protection is afforded by allowing the government to protect the identity of the informant. In the words of the Roviaro decision, “What is usually referred to as the informer’s privilege is, in reality, the Government’s privilege to withhold from disclosure the identity of persons…” What it does not do is to extend any criminal liability to those that disclose an informant’s identity. It simply gives the government the right to try to protect the identity.

In the current matter, that was done to the extent that the law allows, the Protective Order that sanctioned those who were given certain information from disclosing that information. It is only that person, whether a defendant, defendant’s counsel, or even government employee, was subject to the Court’s order not to divulge the identity of the informants.

The government did so even prior to the Discovery being given to the defendants, when they redacted what they believed to be any information that would tend to expose the informants. The informant’s names were redacted as where many hundreds of words that the government felt would identify the informants. The government keeping that information away from the defendants (the identification of informants) was their exercise of the protection of the informants, as per Roviaro.

The government continues to persist in stating, rightfully, “this Court had the authority to issue the orders and that it continues to have the authority to enforce the orders.” However, they have yet to address the relevant aspect of jurisdiction. To put this in context, if a judge in Mexico issues an order, he has such authority. He also has the right to enforce that order. However, does he have the jurisdiction to first, apply that order to someone not within his jurisdiction? And, second, the authority to enforce the order against someone not within his jurisdiction?

The government wants to spin the context of what I said into a confession that is very, very far from my belief and honest admission as to the authority of the judge.

As the government continues, they make this rather curious assertion:

“When Hunt complains that this Court’s orders “prohibit” him from publishing “certain investigative pieces,” his factual premise is simply inaccurate. Second, the justification for the original Protective Order continues because there is an ongoing need to protect cooperating witnesses regardless of the status of the trial.”

So, let’s break this down. I have never complained about anything, except the fact that I was arrested by the government, similar to this current contempt situation, wrongfully applying a statute that did not apply to me, resulting in my spending a week in the Sacramento County Jail. It would have been substantially longer had not Judge Brown seen through the deceitful tactic of the government in attempting to punish me, by simply lying to have a warrant issued for my arrest. See Freedom of the Press #17 – Is This Legal?

Then, the government shysters endeavored to make a point:

“We are not asking this Court to restrain Hunt’s ability generally to write about the case — or even the informants — we only want him to observe this Court’s Order, which means that he cannot publish the discovery material subject to the Court’s Order.”

How nice of them to say that they don’t have a problem with me writing “about the case — or even the informants.” How gracious. However, these shysters are supposed to present facts. My reputation as a journalist (not a blogger) is based on presenting facts. Let’s suppose that I wrote about the informants, but failed to justify my conclusions without facts to back up those conclusions. Well, then, I might just be a blogger. However, as facts are a requisite in our judicial system, they are also a matter of principle to a good journalist. To make accusations without presenting the facts makes a mockery of journalism, as it would of the judicial system.

Besides, such accusations are prolific in the patriot community. They tend to lack any substance and are often made over a simple disagreement between two people. Should some rely upon simply my word that so and so is an informant, the informant would simply accuse the accuser of being an informant. And, the louder voice would probably prevail. Surely, the government shysters would love to see an expansion of the “he said; she said” sort of rhetoric in the community.

As we continue through the Reply, we find this rather subjective statement of ‘facts’:

“[T]he government’s interests far outweigh any First Amendment interest Hunt may assert. First, we need to protect our confidential sources for all of the valid reasons identified in Roviaro. Second, the Court has a significant interest in enforcing the terms of its own Protective Orders. Without enforcement, Hunt’s defiance threatens to undermine our ability to exchange discovery in future criminal cases.”

Now, the first point has already been addressed, with regard to the government’s right to endeavor to protect their sources — which they did by denying the defendants the right to call the witnesses against them (6th Amendment). Second, the Court wrote the Protective Order and subjected those identified as subject to that Protective Order. Daniel Ellsberg was the criminal in the “Pentagon Papers”. The New York Times was not. Finally, and the most laughable, is that the government feels that the exchange of discovery might be undermined. Well, there is little doubt that the shysters want to keep as many secrets as they can from the defense. However, in an effort to attempt to maintain their unscrupulous cadre of spies amongst us, they would willingly subvert the Constitution.

This Sealed Order was obviously prepared by the US Shyster’s Office. Their intention was to punish me, as they have most of the others in the Oregon and Nevada indictments, based upon contrived accusations.

The most oft-repeated contrived accusations that we are all familiar with are:

To justify shooting someone, “I feared for my life and/or the life of a fellow officer”.

Though some have homes, family, and jobs, “They are a flight risk and should be detained in jail until trial”.

Well, now we get another one to add to the list. I have been writing for 24 years. I have never carried a firearm during that period. Though my words may be inciteful, they are simply words (The Pen can be mightier than the Sword). There is no reason to believe that I would avoid arrest, as I had continued the dialogue regarding Freedom of the Press for nearly three months, and met, willingly, with FBI Special Agent Catalano, whenever requested. However, the wording in the Sealed Order states:

The Court, however, finds good cause to file under seal both this Order and the arrest warrant. Throughout this case and in the factually-related matters that took place in Bunkerville, Nevada, in April 2014 that are the subject of ongoing criminal proceedings in the District of Nevada, there have been instances of individuals avoiding the execution of court orders and/or arrest by engaging in armed confrontations with law enforcement. The Court issues under seal this Order and the warrant for Hunt’s arrest in an effort to permit the orderly execution of the arrest warrant.

Well, I wrote about Bunkerville (The Bundy Affair series), and I continue to do so. However, I was not present at that armed, yet peaceful, protest of the government’s effort at the semi-legal rustling of cattle by the BLM, including their intended violation of numerous state and federal laws regarding branding and cattle health certifications. I was at Burns for a few days. However, I was there to get a story on the treatment of the Hammonds, prior to the fires (See “The Harassment of the Hammonds“), that got them imprisoned for five years. There has been no effort on my part to avoid arrest by engaging in an armed confrontation with law enforcement. There was no arrest warrant in the possession of the FBI or the Oregon State Police during the stop, roadblock, and murder of LaVoy Finicum. Finicum, as the government has admitted, expressed to those who had no warrant, that he was going to a law enforcement officer, Sherriff Glenn Palmer of Grant County, Oregon.

This fiction was probably simply glossed over by Judge Brown. However, she “rubber-stamp” signed the Sealed Order and the Arrest Warrant. This was the documentation that was presented to Eastern District of California Magistrate Brennan, who had to decide if I should be detained and diesel transported back to Oregon. And, of course, with that as the only information that he had before him, the demonization of me was such that he curtly denied any alternative.

The case that Magistrate Brennan ruled on is United States of America v. Gary Hunt, Case No. 2:17-mj-00058. The records transferred from California to the Oregon case, United States v. Ammon Bundy, et al, case, in Oregon (which my matter still falls within), and the Booking Report, list the only charge as a violation of 18 U. S. Code §3146, “failure to appear”.

Freedom of the Press #16
Jurisdiction Hearing

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 15, 2017

To put proper perspective on recent ongoing events leading up to my jurisdiction hearing in Portland, Oregon, on May 9, 2017, we must go back to the Order (ECF #1901) to show cause why I should not be held in contempt of Court. That Order demanded my appearance to answer the allegations made by the government. It was specific to the show cause and had nothing to do with jurisdiction. Had I appeared, it could easily be argued by the Court that my appearance was a submission to jurisdiction. Now, as strange as it might seem, unless jurisdictional questions are raised at the outset, the Court can properly assume jurisdiction. My research indicates that this was firmly established as early as 1856 (Dredd Scott v Sandford, 60 US 393 (1856)). Matters of jurisdiction were not the object of the hearing, and may not necessarily be heard.

The assumption of jurisdiction could be the possible outcome; the consideration of jurisdiction had to be established by other means. I was not sure just how this could be achieved. However, subsequent to my arrest, Judge Brown provided the opportune means in the telephonic hearing on April 6, 2017. This is fully explained in “Freedom of the Press #14 – Telephonic Hearing“. Briefly, the matter of jurisdiction was brought up as a separate issue from the show cause, which at that time was the only subject on the table.

That Hearing resulted in the scheduling of the May 9 jurisdiction hearing, so the two issues, jurisdiction, and show cause (First Amendment – Freedom of the Press), were separate, and would be heard separately. The jurisdiction would be heard in one hearing, the show cause in a subsequent hearing.

Well, this was a start. However, it was rather discomforting. If I were to win at the jurisdiction hearing, then there would be no show cause hearing. And, I was pretty sure that I would win at jurisdiction, meaning that the Freedom of the Press issue would not have its day in court.

On the other hand, if I lost the jurisdiction hearing, then the Freedom of the press aspect would see the light of day. Heck, I even contemplated losing the jurisdiction arguments, though it is nearly as important, so that the other, more important, show cause issue could be heard and ruled on.

Well, on May 9, Judge Brown dismissed the jurisdiction motion, with her “Order Denying Request to Dismiss Contempt Proceedings for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction” (ECF #2095). The written Order was filed two days later, on May 11. The pertinent parts follow:

In particular, the Court finds the government has made a sufficient preliminary showing that evidence exists to support its theory that Hunt intentionally or knowingly aided and abetted a party to this litigation in the violation of the Protective Order (#382). That preliminary showing requires this Court to proceed to litigate the combined jurisdictional and merits-related issues. See Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983)(When “the jurisdictional issue and the substantive issue are so intertwined that the question of jurisdiction is dependent on factual issues going to the merits, the jurisdictional determination should await a determination of the relevant facts on either a motion going to the merits or at trial.”). See also Young v. United States, 769 F.3d 1047, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2014).

So, we can see that as the government has, in the past four months, filed no less than ten documents in pursuing the finding of contempt of court; they have only “made a sufficient preliminary showing that evidence exists to support its theory.” It does not state that they made their case, only that they have made a rather poor showing of trying to make their case.